Forum:Should we editorialize?
I am moving a discussion which started in one place and moved to another here. Because, the scope of the discussion has changed from a straight forward discussion of whether a comment should be in an article to an in-depth discussion of what role we should take as editorializers. The following have been copied here by MKnopp ---- It is unclear if this effect was ever reversed, which is a troubling prospect. I know that it is a fine line between seeing something and extrapolating what it means. I don't want to stiffle that here. However, to me this is beyond seeing something in the show and interjecting a bit of personal interpretation. Thoughts? Mknopp (talk) 22:42, February 14, 2013 (UTC) You don't find it so? I don't think even RW encyclopedic articles would consider it editorial to mention in such a slight way the fact that it was left unclear the final disposition of a seven year old boy '''who was '''mind-raped. I rather think I exercised considerable restraint with the wording of that statement. Certainly users of this encyclopedic source should at least have it brought to their attention even in this passive a fashion. Now, want personal interpretations? It is also troubling that Electronique's final fate was left open as well, PLUS Kim was seemingly OKAY with Shego left so indefinitely. If it were Ron or her parents, she'd have not rested a moment to move Heaven and Earth to seek a fix. I could go into depth, if just not in this article, about Kim's entirely fluid sense of ethics and morality as displayed in the series. Love Robin (talk) 02:27, February 15, 2013 (UTC) Honestly, no, I do not find the final disposition of Shaun or Electronique troubling. And, I dare say, that the majority of people in the world, would agree with me. Practically since the dawn of civilization societies have been seeking out methods of "curing" the sociopaths and psychopaths within it of their illness. Personally, I find the use of a technology such as the Attitudinator to be a far better solution that execution, permanent incarceration, or many of the modern drugs we use. The fact of the matter is that the Attitudinator is only a small matter of degree removed from drugs such as Thorazine or Clozaril used to treat Schizophrenia and it doesn't have the nasty side effects. Honestly, if a device like the Attitudinator did exist in the world, then there would likely be many very happy people. People who, like Shaun, exhibit no regard for right and wrong, often violate the law, disregard the rights of others, engage in frequent violent conflict, lie, and usually have drug and alcohol problems. Quite frankly, Shaun was on a very bad road. And from his long term pattern of behavior it was pretty clear that there was no responsible adult in his life making any effective attempt to set him straight. To me, Shaun finally got the help he so desperately needed to allow him to become a functional member of society instead of the clear road to incarceration or worse that he was traveling on. The fact that he was seven when it happened simply meant that unlike Electronique he won't have to serve time in prison for his sociopathic behavior. Like cancer it was caught early enough that it wasn't a major problem. So, again, I don't find this to be "mind rape" and I don't see how some else could, unless they also finds the numerous drugs and treatments that many people around the world are using to combat sociopathic tendencies to also be mind rape. Which, I will readily admit is a possibility. I do realize that there are people who find psychotherapy and drugs to be morally repugnant, but I personally don't agree with them. Regarding, Kim moving Heaven and Earth to cure Ron or her parents. Well, that would be moving a moral and good person to that of a sociopath or evil person, and I would truly hope that anybody would move Heaven and Earth to help them. Because, unlike the reverse this change doesn't help the person, it removes them from a functional life in society. Simply put, the two are not equal, despite the use of the same device. It would be tangentially analogous to doctor using a scalpel to remove a cancerous tumor from the brain versus a maniac using a scalpel to remove a healthy prefrontal cortex. One is a good use of the device and one isn't. And just because a maniac might wield a scalpel amorally doesn't make the doctor's use of the scalpel immoral. At least that is my take on it. Mknopp (talk) 04:35, February 15, 2013 (UTC) Electronique was an adult and a villain, so that is more debatable as to the properness of it. However, not only was Shaun a child, the decision to, and execution of, adjusting his attitude in such a fashion was *not done by his parents*. Or even authority figures. It was decided and performed by a teenager who had been unable to stand against a troublesome child. NO ONE PERSON should have such discretion to impose their will upon others. Certainly not another child ''only twice the age of the subject. Drugs or other methods are prescribed after a study, diagnosis, and recommendation '''by professionals '''to parents and others '''in position of authority'. And of course second opinions are recommended. Hopefully if the Attitudinator were to ever be developed in the Real World, it too would be subjected to restrictions similar to dispensing drugs and or addressing brain tumors. But like anything, it is open to abuses. Such as certain drugs can be useful when medically prescribed, when used by none professions, it can be used to rape an individual. Would *you* want some 14-15 year old to take it upon themselves ''to use a device, or drug, or whatever on *your* child? Hopefully you would be more aware of your child's actions and be more proactive in parenting, but we're not discussing the actions of Shaun's parents, we're discussing the fact that RON ''decided for himself ''to use a device to MAKE HIS LIFE EASIER by using it on a boy half his own tender age. That is mind-rape. Of a child. By another. Love Robin (talk) 05:29, February 15, 2013 (UTC) You do realize that this is on a show about a group of kids who are vigilantes and lauded for it. In the Ranma community this is something that was known as subjective morality. You are perfectly okay with giving Kim and Ron a pass on their episodic violation of numerous legal and moral issues, but you want to suddenly hold this instance to a different standard of morality? Who gave either of them the authority or the right to break into Any of the villain's lairs and assault them? After all these are children dealing with life and death situations, and in the real world that is insane. In fact, the Possibles and Stoppables should have all of their children taken from them for child endangerment. However, this isn't about treality. It is a kid's show where these same kids that you are saying don't have the legal or moral authority to correct Shaun's sociopathic behavior regularly hold numerous lives in their hands. You can't have it both ways. If we make this moral statement, then we have to also make the statement that the Possibles and Stoppables are unfit parents and nobody seems to care, that is very troubling. Kim and Ron are criminals, and should be brought to justice, yet instead they are held up as heroes for the world to cheer, that is simply wrong and this wiki needs to address that issue. Is that what you really think this wiki should be? Because, I don't. Look this is simple. It isn't some great moral dilemma. Shaun was attitudinate because he was written as a sociopath, and just as when we cheer at Kim or Ron taking actions that would kill the villains in real life we were supposed to cheer at Ron finding a non-violent way to solve his cousin problem. I realize that this is a hot button topic for you; I get it. And I don't have a problem discussing it with you here, but I want you to realize that it is your personal subjective morality that makes this stick out as different, not some universal outrage at Ron's actions. If KP were real then there would more than enough universal,outrage to go around, but it isn't real. So, just, please, keep that in mind. I know that you love to treat KP as if it were real and look at everything from in universe, but the wiki isn't the place for that. Sometimes things are simply the way three are because of real life reasons, like a creator's goof or the realities of the medium or someone's idea of "karma". Mknopp (talk) 06:15, February 15, 2013 (UTC) '''Because heroes should be ''better ''than the villains'. It is one thing to take certain actions against adults, it is another against kids. Even Shego momentarily balked at stealing a wheelchair. So our heroes should be less than a person avowed as evil? Kim called mind control "ferociously unethical" yet despite being subjected to it herself and subsequently saved from it by her brothers, she had no problem using it on them to make them nap. With the Love Ray, Kim thought nothing of zapping Monique without warning simple because she was blocking the way, and threatened to do it again if she didn't stop fussing. And that's her best female friend. Well I didn't go into an in-depth discussion, I simply tagged on that with Shaun it was troubling. Had Drakken done it to Shaun, what would the heroes' reaction have been? What *should* it have been? Why should it be any different when done by Ron, hopefully Kim unaware of it? Again, No One Person should exercise that against any other one person without checks and balances, especially a child against one younger. Okay, suppose Evil Ron had done it to Shaun, maybe other kids as well. Would that have been okay? Suppose Kim started equipping herself with the Reverse Polarizer and started blasting kids. Would *that* have been okay? How would that be much better than Nanny Maim using evil (formerly adult) babies? We should demand better of our heroes. Why was Coach Kim's actions against a bunch of kids allowed to be highlighted as Not Okay, but Ron messing with a kid's brain okay? And Shaun was not a sociopath. He was simply a bully. Probably because his parents subscribe to either the "don't stifle your child" or "absentee parenting" techniques? Shaun was little different from Artie Smartie, bears some resemblance to each other, yet why is it okay to zap Shaun and not Artie? Look, in my fics, I deconstruct them thoroughly, my flagship fic following Kim's slide into evil. But here, I don't see why "a troubling prospect" is out of place. I carefully worded it so that it was neutral. And would have prevented this entire discussion. Prevented dragging this entire matter of ethical fluidity out in the open. Still, you've heard me posit that Ron's blue aura as different from the color of the idols which graced him the power, may be tainted based upon his expression at time he does kick it in gear. This is certainly supportive of that. As for the Possibles' and Stoppables' paranting techniques, well, I do have issues with how the Stoppables treated Ron, but Kim's parents allowing her to do what she does… is still *her parents* allowing her to do what she does. I'm a HUGE supporter of Parental Rights and that the government has little place to abut their noses in where they don't belong. So I may not agree or approve of how Shaun's folks are parenting him, but is it still 1) their place, 2) their right, 3) their responsibility to *take* responsibility. How hard would it have been for Kim to help Ron get through to Shaun's folks that he's on a bad road? For THAT MATTER, considering Shaun's expression as Bad Boy Ron was looming over him with his doom contraption, the writers could have used THAT MOMENT for Shaun to realize he needed to treat Ron better, then at the end have him say something like "Sorry I always treated you badly, Cousin Ron. I'll be better from now on… so, no need to come after me with any more doom machines… right?" "Glad to hear that Shaun, and we'll see how good you are…" SAME RESULT, without ''resorting to Good Guy using non-ethical tactics. If we're going to be an encyclopedic source, then why not the less than flattering as well? Why not passively help users to see the moments "which makes you go 'hmmm…'?" Love Robin (talk) 09:02, February 15, 2013 (UTC) . ---- It is not an encyclopedia's purpose to editorialize. Before we go any farther, I want to make one thing very clear. I would not condone nor stand for the vast majority of things that are done in this show, '''if it were done in real life', but the fact is that this isn't about real children nor real life. It is a resource regarding a television show about a group of children who go out and break the law and mores of several societies, and for these moral and legal violations are held up as heroes. I will reiterate, this is your subjective morality, and, as such, it is not the same as everyone's subjective morality. Let me try to make clear what I mean by subjective morality. It was a term that was introduced to in the Ranma fan-community. Ranma is a slapstick comedy, and many people find it funny. However, invariably there is something that is done in the series that triggers a reader's subjective morality. Something is done that steps over their personal, subjective moral line in the sand. It is this action that makes the reader step back and go, "Whoa, that isn't funny. There is nothing funny about that." The things on the okay side of the line can be ignored or justified away so that the story can be enjoyed for what it is. The things on the not okay side of the line draw the reader out of the story and usually result in outrage that the "good guys" did that. (Or as was most often the case in Ranma was used to vilifying one character for actions that they ignore or justify in others.) To put it bluntly, this doesn't cross my subjective moral line-in-the-sand. I can just as easily ignore the questionable morality of it as I can ignore the questionable morality of Kim and Ron--the supposed heroes--breaking into places that they have no authority to break into and attacking people that they have no authority to attack. Or for an example much more fitting to your issue the absolute moral outrage that would be spawned if the show were real and the Possibles and Stoppables had actually allowed their barely, or not quite, teenage children to engage in these illegal and possibly lethal activities. This is exactly why we should not editorialize about this. Why should your subjective morals be the basis of what we draw a line at being unacceptable? If we place this editorial comment in Shaun's article because you don't find this action becoming a "hero", then should we also allow or demand editorial comments on the amoral parenting practices of the Possibles and Stoppables? Should we allow or demand editorial comments on the ethical and moral obligation of the authorities in terminating Shego, a living weapon who has numerous times attempted to murder a minor, has engaged in treasonous acts, has a history of assault and violent behavior, and has demonstrated the capability of escaping incarceration numerous times? You don't demonstrate moral outrage at these morally questionable actions, but there may very well be many people whose subjective moral line-in-the-sand does find these to be morally outrageous. Is it then our responsibility to editorialize on these? We are supposed to remain aloof. I know that in today's sham of journalism that remaining a neutral reporter is almost unheard of--everyone wants to editorialize, but I really think we should harken back to the days where reference materials, be it an encyclopedia or journalism, strove to simply present the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I had no problem with you presenting the less flattering moment. Ron used the Attitudinator on his seven year old cousin who had been bullying him, and the final disposition of Shaun is unknown. These are facts; they are neutral in tone and simply present the information. What is not neutral is then going on to tell the reader how they should feel about this information. It shouldn't be here are the facts and this is how you should feel about it. It simply is not our job to tell the reader how they should feel. At least that is my take. I really want to get some more feedback on this. As this has moved well beyond a simple discussion of Shaun and the Attitudinator and well into the scope of what we are trying to do here. Mknopp (talk) 14:40, February 15, 2013 (UTC) :I was going to stay out of this, since it had grown well beyond the original issue. But I think our only real job is to describe what happened. Can we discuss a possible deeper meaning to what happened? Sure. But we have to be mindful that some things are not going to be felt by everyone, because some things are just not going to be a universal experience. For example, because I was bullied as a kid, I rarely ever have sympathy for bullies. So my train of thought concerning Shaun pretty much ended with a mental picture of his parents running off into the sunset hand in hand with their new and improved son. All we're really required to do is show what happened right up until the episode ended. When you start to add personal opinions, the article takes on a certain tone that some wouldn't understand or appreciate, because their experience was different. :Plus, to be perfectly honest, I spent the better part of an hour thinking up a reply that detailed why Shaun or whoever his guardian was should have been held accountable for his actions, prior to his even being introduced to the Attitudinator. Because it shouldn't have reached the point where Ron, an immature and bullied teenager, felt or was responsible for changing him. Since that was what I took from my experience with bullying: that someone should be held accountable, and the bad behavior changed before drastic measures are taken, by people who have no idea what they're doing or what their options truly are. - Dap00 19:31, February 15, 2013 (UTC) : {chuckle} It's all fun and games until someone uses a mind-altering plot-device on YOU. Love Robin (talk) 20:11, February 15, 2013 (UTC) I'm just wondering, Love Robin, you keep bringing up your fan fictions and what you have the characters do. But you are not involved in the creation of Kim Possible. It is really troubling how you think your views are far superior to everybody elses. A wiki should be strictly Canon facts. No room for interpretation on the pages. That's what the talk pages are for if you want to discuss interpretations. I do want to say though, Love Robin, that you do a great job editing the wiki for the most part. Though i have anylized every one of your edits. But without you and Mknoop this place would be a ghost town with no info. So i do want to thank you for that. But the reason i come back here, is because i'm concerned that one of these days this wiki is going to be filled with interpretation. And i don't want that. Slicknickshady (talk) 06:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the Kind Words here, SNS. I do *know* canon. Which is why my fan fics are enjoyed so much by so many; pairing aside, they feel like the show. I feel free to mention my thoughts freely in the areas of this wiki, such as Forums and Talks, where such conversation is allowed because it also gives insight into My Process, as well as helps others to help me in case I *do* step over lines. I still maintain that using the Attitudinator on a 7 year old boy by one single individual, another youth, as Wrong-Sick, and to have left his disposition unknown yet implied as permanent is a message which should not have been given to the show's Target Demographic. I maintain that it is "a troubling Prospect". An indication that perhaps Ron was *not* restored completely to normal, that Evil Ron is still there under the surface. Which Stop Team Go actually supports. However, I also recognize I'm apparently in the minority among those expressing their views, so will have to abide with that line being omitted. Love Robin (talk) 09:47, February 18, 2013 (UTC) I admit when i'm wrong, and i want to apoligize for what i said to you on twitter.' I' should have not took our disagreements from DeviantArt to Twitter. I should have not, whats the word, made it personal. We obviously disagree, and well that likely won't change. But i should not have made it personal on twitter, and even on deviant art. I overreacted to some of your critiques. I admire how you and Mknopp interact while having differences of opinion. I can only hope i learn from some of his interactions on how to kindly debate while not making it personal. Which i did. This will be the only time i bring up anything from outside the wiki between us here. So while we may not be friends. I do get tired of hate in fandoms im a part of. I have become more accepting of other pov's since Kim Possible has ended. But obviously, as these last few weeks have proved, I have not improved as much as i need to. But i will continue to work on it. Also, I wan't to make clear, I don't agree with everything the creators of Kim Possible did. I have criticisms and critiques as well. While they are not as serious, in my opinion, as some of your critiques. It's still hypocritical of me to get on you for having them when i do as well. Take care. Slicknickshady (talk) 00:14, February 19, 2013 (UTC) ---- Here's further food for thought. In Gorilla Fist, why was it *not* acceptable to the Heroes to leave a 40-something year old Avowed Evil Villain who had several times tried to kill them ''to his fate… yet okay to leave a 7-yo boy victim to a villain-device? Obviously it indicated Ron's Evil was still there just under the surface. Love Robin (talk) 15:37, February 24, 2013 (UTC) Gorilla Fist was a weird case, though. I feel like the only went back for Monkey Fist because they had no idea what was in store for him, and because he technically hadn't done anything wrong ''that day. Sometimes I think forgiving the bad guys temporarily was in Team Possible's contract: X-mas with Drakken, save Monkey Fist once, help Shego when she turns good, etc. So it was just his turn, I guess. Although I feel the need to point out, once they knew it was just DNAmy crushing hard on him, they couldn't get out of there fast enough. Because DNAmy crushing is sick and wrong, but mind control is okay somehow. The morality is odd sometimes, I admit. For example, when Vinnie ripped off Senior's fortune, I feel like he was justified in trying to get it back, but Kim was like, "Not on my watch." But you should see her explode if Jim and Tim took anything from her room. Or if Bonnie tried to take from her. I don't expect Kim to be perfect, but sometimes she was really flawed. I guess that made her more real, but it wasn't always easy to watch. - Dap00 03:00, February 25, 2013 (UTC)